﻿The title of this blog is dedicated to those world views which mistake necessary for sufficient
conditions, view reasoning as reducible to physics, and substitute reality with imagination. A subtitle of
this blog could be “Reality Deficit,” since it endeavours to deal with world views, statements and
definitions of existence which are inconsistent or deficient in reality. Invest or spend this reality
cheque as you see fit, and please don’t hesitate to inform me if it ever bounces.

Welcome

I attack worldviews that are inconsistent. I do not attack people. Please contribute. I welcome constructive and negative criticism, however personal attacks and character assassinations do not a logical argument make.

ID relevant mathematics

Politics

Galileo Galilei

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Albert Einstein

The scientist's religious feeling takes the form of
rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
(The World As I See It, p.9)

Robert Wright

Its amazing that a process as amoral and crassly pragmatic as natural selection could design [!] a mental organ that makes us feel as if we’re in touch with higher truths. Truly a shameless ploy.

Sir Francis Bacon, "Novum Organum"

“Lastly, there are others who appear anxious lest there should be something discovered in the investigation of nature to overthrow, or at least shake religion, particularly among the unlearned. The two last apprehensions appear to resemble animal instinct, as if men were diffident, in the bottom of their minds, and secret meditations, of the strength of religion, and the empire of faith over the senses; and therefore feared that some danger awaited them from an inquiry into nature. But any one who properly considers the subject, will find natural philosophy to be, after the word of God, the surest remedy against superstition, and the most approved support of faith. She [i.e., natural philosophy=science] is therefore rightly bestowed upon religion as a most faithful attendant, for the one exhibits the will and the other the power of God.”

J. B. S. Haldane

But if death will probably be the end of me as a finite individual mind, that does not mean that it will be the end of me altogether. It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter.
For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have a no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does
not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.
In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter. But as regards my own very finite and imperfect mind, I can see, by studying the effects on it of drugs, alcohol, disease, and so on, that. its limitations are largely at least due to my body.”
“When I Am Dead”, Possible Worlds: And Other Essays

Max Planck

﻿“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.”
(during his Nobel acceptance speech)

Louis Pasteur

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.
“Louis Pasteur—Founder of Modern Medicine”

C. S. Lewis

﻿If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be
able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental
shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

Cyril Burt (British neurologist)

﻿A comparison of the specific micro-neural situations in which consciousness does and does not arise suggests that the brain functions not as a generator of consciousness, but rather as a two-way transmitter and detector, i.e., although its activity is apparently a necessary condition, it cannot be a sufficient condition of conscious experience.

G. K. Chesterton

﻿. . . The Darwinians have this mark of fighters for a lost cause, that they are perpetually appealing to sentiment and to authority. Put your bat or your rhinoceros simply and innocently as a child might put them, before the Darwinian, and he will answer by an appeal to authority. He will probably answer with the names of various German professors; he will not answer with any ordinary English words, explaining the point at issue. God condescended to argue with Job, but the last Darwinian will not condescend to argue with you. He will inform you of your ignorance; he will not enlighten your ignorance.
And I will add this point of merely personal experience of humanity: when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it. When they have no explanation to offer, they give short dignified replies, disdainful of the ignorance of the multitude.
(published in 1920)

Robert Jastrow

﻿A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth… At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

My apologies that this is so long, however, I felt that I needed considerable room to describe coded information and what is meant by specificity, as well as providing one testable and potentially falsifiable ID hypothesis.

My comments from the blog at Telic Thoughts will be in green and Zachriel, your comments will appear in blue and will be

centred.

My continuing response that did not originally appear at Telic Thoughts will follow in plain type.

CJYman: These are eroneous conclusions because they are not created through any scientificinference or experiment. Tell me, what experience do we have with angels, crystal spheres, demons, or angry sky gods, so that we can use them as causal explanations of phenomenon?

Zachriel: Precisely! They are not valid scientific inferences. It isn't enough to point atimpressive, intricate, specific and detailed planetary movements and say that they are due to agency. If a claim is to have scientific validity, it has to lead to specific and distinguishing empirical consequences.

CJYman: Exactly, and this is where the point re: codes and intelligence as a valid scientificinference which I usually bring to the table and which stunney continues to bring forward isextremely relevant.

Zachriel: Codes? Do you mean cryptanalysis? If so, then cryptanalysis is deep within the orthodox paradigm. We know that people make codes to safeguard and communicate secrets. We know that people try to break codes to steal secrets. As such, cryptography can be analyzed as a branch of game theory. "The enemy knows the system." Codes are usually understood by making and testing various assumptions about the encoder, the probable messages, and the mechanism of encoding.

“Codes” – I mean coded information, of which cryptanalysis deals with in part. What system creates coded information and the information processor to convert present codes into future integrated systems? Here’s a hint – you possess it.

In fact, cryptanalysis deals with discovering a code's cypher, or specificity. If there is a cypher, causing the code to be specified, then it is possible to process (convert) the code with some type of information processor (ie: "enigma machine"). This is important and I will be discussing specificity further on in this post, and how specificity is one of the main defining factors of coded information.

CJYman: Furthermore, appealing to angels and demons is major orders of magnitude off ofappealing to intelligence, since science is beginning to understand intelligence, can modelintelligence, understands that intelligence and information are intricately related — in fact necessary for each other as far as we can scientifically determine.

Zachriel: Again, precisely the point. We refer to a library of knowledge to help us form tentativeassumptions, which we then use to devise specific and distinguishing empirical tests.

Hold on – that certainly did not seem to be “precisely the point” when you seemed to be saying that ID theory is no more scientific than “angels, demons, and crystal spheres theory.” I have just shown that line of thinking to be COMPLETELY incorrect and a horrible obfuscation, and you seem to agree with me now.

So why again, does it seem that you were trying to conflate ID theory with a belief in angels, demons and crystal spheres? What was your point in bringing up angels, demons, and crystal spheres?

It is obviously perfectly scientific to create a tentative assumption that intelligence is necessary to program the appearance of information processing systems. That is one aspect of ID theory.

CJYman: Conversely, there is no scientific understanding of angels and demons, no scientificmodels of 'artificial' angels/angelicness or demons/demonicness, and so far no scientific'inter-relatedness' between angels, crystal spheres, and planetary motion.

Because of that, I am extremely fed up with your irrelevant and nonsensical smoke and mirror obfuscations of ID with angels and crystal spheres.

Zachriel: Again, precisely the point. They were invoked to explain Gaps in human understandingof these phenomena. Whatever poetic value they have had, invoking agency to explain planetarymotions is scientifically vacuous.

Again, what does this have to do with ID theory? You say “precisely the point,” but I am missing your original point and why you brought up angels and crystal spheres in the first place.

CJYman: Specificity, not merely complexity, is a sign of intelligence.

Zachriel: Planetary motions are not only complex, but specified. They certainly don't move about willy-nilly. For instance, they are confined to a narrow region of the sky called the Ecliptic. Until modern times, this was unexplained.

It is obvious we are not on the same playing field when discussing specificity. You are discussing complex natural laws of attraction (voltaic, magnetic, and gravitational) that cause something to move about in a specific orbit, rather than willy-nilly. However, there is no specification or representation/conversion as the term is used within ID theory.

Let’s look to the dictionary for a start:

-specified: to include as an item in a specification.

-specification: a detailed precise presentation of something or of a plan or proposal for something.

As you can see, when something is specified, it includes, within its detailed plan, a separate item.

– ie: SPECIFIC markings on Mount Rushmore SPECIFY four president’s faces; the SPECIFIC arrangement of the english letters “c” - “a” - “t” SPECIFIES the idea of a four legged mammal which carries her cubs/kittens around by the scruff of the neck and meows/roars; the SPECIFIC arrangement of nucleotides within genes can SPECIFY a molecular machine.

Another small detail is that in order for anything to be specified, it must be converted by an information processor into its specified object or idea.

This is how specification is used in ID theory and in coded information. In fact, this is how one determines if something indeed IS coded information – is there any specificity (representation/conversion). Do the units in question specify a separate function or meaning when processed? Or, as the dictionary puts it, is a separate item included within the plan – a plan being a specific arrangement (sequence)?

When dealing with something that is specified, it causes a SPECIFIC item as based on the SPECIFIC sequence/organization of its plan.

I will admit that there is a slight problem with scientifically deciding whether an object is indeed specified whenever intelligence is the system converting (processing) the object in question into its specification. This is because art (intelligent representation) is subjective and intelligence seems to be able to make subjective interpretations and decide that a pattern merely LOOKS LIKE something else. There is actually no scientific way to decide if a shape which is not composed of discrete units and not chosen from a finite “alphabet” actually represents the object in question.

However, that is not how coded informational systems work, so there needs to be a distinguishing line drawn here. Coded information is measurable because it consists of discrete units chosen from a finite alphabet and it is objectively processed by rules set by its processing system. By objectively, I mean that a specific input always equals one specific output; there is only one way for it to be processed by its compatible information processor, and it will objectively output the function, according to the rules of its compatible processor, which corresponds to the specific input with no subjective interpretation except for any “deeper meaning,” nuances, implications, etc. However any of those “deeper meanings” would be the artistic layers of some intelligently created codes (such as language) and as art those layers can not be scientifically determined to exist as an intelligent construct within the code, even though the code itself can be scientifically verified to exist because it can be processed objectively according to the rules of its governing system as having meaning/function of some type.

Furthermore, there is no ambiguity within a non-conscious information processing system as it will be completely objective as based on its programming. Ask our genetic information processing system what “ACTG ...” is and it will pump out the correct protein or regulation or system, etc. which that specific sequence specifies/represents. But if intelligent systems such as you and I look at the same ink blot or cloud or eroded sand sculpture, we will both be able to decide on separate “meanings” for the systems in question, including no meaning at all.

However, when we are dealing with coded information created by intelligence, instead of merely having an infinite number of possible abstract artistic shapes, we also have an agreed upon language with defined units, rules and words which, although created subjectively, once they are created and implemented they provide an objective set of rules for deciding specificity. Furthermore, unlike possible artistic shapes that might look like something an intelligence could have made, coded information can also be measured according to number of units measured against its available “alphabet.”

Here are two 100 bit strings of shannon information, however only one of them is coded information – or as Dr. Dembski puts it, “specified information:”

Canyouunderstandthis – specifies a question in the English languageoeskysqpqdykvuuzhfeh – specifies nothing

How can you know that one of them is coded information and thus the result of intelligence, rather than merely the result of a random string generator? You can only do so by discovering specificity since specificity is only possible in light of an information processing system (in the above case: an intelligent English speaking human) and intelligence creates information processors and according to ID theory random laws do not. IF THE STRING IS NOT DEFINED BY NATURAL LAWS OF ATTRACTION AND IF IT IS PROCESSED INTO A SEPARATE FUNCTION, IT IS SPECIFIED AND THUS THE RESULT OF INTELLIGENCE, SINCE INFORMATION/PROCESSING SYSTEMS ARE THE RESULT OF INTELLIGENCE.

Of course, Dr. Dembski goes even further for discovering necessarily programmed (intelligently designed) results within an evolving system, and explains that specified information over “x” number of bits does not have the time within our universe to have been discovered through random search (random variation) no matter how many times intermediate lengths of that string were frozen by natural selection. (At least that is how I understand Dr. Dembski’s argument) But that is not what I am discussing right now. I am merely discussing the existence of coded information/processing systems.

So, codes and information processing systems are defined not by how the systems look but by how they are specified according to the rules of its compatible processor which converts the specific arrangement of units into specific functional structure, along with the fact that coded information is not defined by physical laws of attraction between its units. Again, as per the given dictionary definition of “specified,” is a separate item included within the coded plan; and do they specify (represent) a separate function when processed -- are they processed and converted into further functional systems? Within the genome, proteins are one of the separate items which are included in the plan (blueprint) of the genome.

DEFINITION: coded information = an aperiodic sequence of units, in which the arrangement is not defined by physical laws of attraction, chosen from a finite “alphabet” which is processed (converted) into a separate system (of ideas/meaning or objects/functions). Furthermore, because it contains discrete units chosen from a finite “alphabet,” coded information can be measured in binary digits (bits) as per shannon information theory. Basically, discover a cypher (specificity) which is based on a finite alphabet, and you have discovered coded information. As far as I understand, this is the main idea behind code cracking -- cryptanalysis.

Now, let’s apply this to planetary orbits. Sure they move in a definite orbit, but do these orbits or the arrangement (sequence) of the planets themselves contain within them a separate function when processed? Well, I am not aware of any system which processes the sequence of the planets and their orbits to produce a separate item according to the specificity of the planetary orbits. The planetary orbits do not intrinsically (as the nature of the system) specify or represent anything.

Sure, we humans can extrinsically impose information on the regularities of the system (as we can with any system which acts regularly: ie atomic vibrations) and use it as a time keeping device, but that is the result of subjective intelligence and is external to the system in question and is merely a MEASUREMENT OF REGULARITY WHICH IS DEFINED BY PHYSICAL LAWS OF NATURE/ATTRACTION. The planetary system does not contain any coded (sequenced) information within it. If it did, then the planets themselves or their positions relative to each other would contain further function or meaning. That is what is known as astrology. But, I’m quite confident that you don’t see astrology as scientific.

Now, let’s look at life. How do we know we aren’t imposing information upon the system, and as you state a bit later “Is it really a "code" or are we confusing the analogy with the thing itself?”It is actually quite obvious that life is an actual coded information processing system because it does not need any imposition externally in order to be specified. It processes its own information completely objectively -- specific input = specific output with no multiple subjective interpretations.

First, DNA isn’t a molecule that organizes itself according to physical laws of attraction between its units. Second, DNA specifies amino acids, proteins, and other systems when processed by its information processor regardless of whether we humans measure it or not. And life itself is not just a measurement of regularities – it is an actual processing (converting) of an irregular sequence of units, not defined by physical laws of attraction, into further function.

In fact, as I imply [elsewhere], if DNA existed on its own without any system to process it, it would not be coded information (or at the very least we would not be able to scientifically determine if it was coded information) -- it would merely be a random string of chemicals, probably forged accidentally and randomly since the organization of its units (nucleotides) do not follow any natural laws of attraction between the units. Likewise, if the english language did not exist within this universe and somehow a few lines of random markings organized themselves into the pattern: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...” on the side of a white birch tree, there would be no way to scientifically know if the random patterns were indeed coded information -- in fact these random markings would have no meaning since they would not specify anything without the existence of human intelligence and the English language.

Conversely, with SETI, the reason why a sequence of 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 ... would be seen as coded information resulting from intelligence is because it is not MERELY a random string of units. It is an aperiodic sequence (not merely a measurement of regularities caused by physical laws of attraction) processed by intelligence as “the mathematical idea of prime numbers” AND since its arrangement (sequence) is indeed not defined by physical laws of attraction, unlike planetary orbits, we can be confident in saying we have scientifically verified that “we are not alone.” The pattern 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 ... specifies or represents “a section of prime numbers” and is not a pattern that is created by natural laws of physical attraction as are planetary orbits.

Reminder: the subjective interpretation by intelligence of a periodic system, which is defined by physical laws of attraction and which does not rely on a processing system, as being informative based on its regularities (using planetary orbits as a timekeeper) must not be confused with the objective processing of an aperiodic system of units not defined by physical laws of attraction which has specificity/representation/meaning (life’s processing of DNA), in which processing of the system causes separate items which function together. The former is not coded information; however the latter is coded information.

The main point as I see it is that when dealing with specificity we are also dealing with an information processor of some type, since specificity is only recognizable in light of some type of information processor. There must be something which converts and causes specification. So, since intelligence and information are intricately related – both necessary for each other as far as we can scientifically determine – then, until a random set of laws causes an information processing system to randomly generate itself, ID is the best scientific explanation for specificity (coded information).

Zachriel: Previously, the planets were thought to be designed to control the destiny of humankind, and their movements gave clues to that destiny. But as you point out, "so far no scientific 'inter-relatedness' between angels, crystal spheres, and planetary motion."

Exactly, and there IS scientific ‘inter-relatedness’ between coded information and intelligence.

CJYman: Every example of a code (specificity) that we know the origins has its origination in anintelligence …… and according to yourself: ...

Zachriel: In real-life science, we always compare purported artifacts to known examples, thenattempt to identify characteristics of the artisan or art. That's how it's done.

Yes, and that’s why we compare the information processing system of life with all known examples of coded information which has been produced by intelligence.

Zachriel:Look at your statement carefully. The strength of your argument depends on the extent of human ignorance. Nevertheless, it still may be suitable for generating a hypothesis.

Ignorance of what? How information processing systems randomly and accidentally generate themselves without any underlying intelligence/plan/information? That’s not even a scientific hypothesis because when dealing with accidental randomness there is no underlying NATURAL LAW and as such there is no way to falsify an hypothesis based on random accidents.

I refer you to a quote from a Professor Hasofer:

"The problem [of falsifiability of a probabilistic statement] has been dealt with in a recent book by G. Matheron, entitled Estimating and Choosing: An Essay on Probability in Practice (Springer-Verlag, 1989). He proposes that a probabilistic model be considered falsifiable if some of its consequences have zero (or in practice very low) probability. If one of these consequences is observed, the model is then rejected.‘The fatal weakness of the monkey argument, which calculates probabilities of events “somewhere, sometime”, is that all events, no matter how unlikely they are, have probability one as long as they are logically possible, so that the suggested model can never be falsified. Accepting the validity of Huxley’s reasoning puts the whole probability theory outside the realm of verifiable science. In particular, it vitiates the whole of quantum theory and statistical mechanics, including thermodynamics, and therefore destroys the foundations of all modern science. For example, as Bertrand Russell once pointed out, if we put a kettle on a fire and the water in the kettle froze, we should argue, following Huxley, that a very unlikely event of statistical mechanics occurred, as it should “somewhere, sometime”, rather than trying to find out what went wrong with the experiment!’”

So, what really went “wrong” with our universe for it to have created a system of replicating information processing systems which continually (at least for about 3.5 billion years) generate novel information? The reason I ask what went “wrong” is because the very foundation of life is based on a system (coded information) which is not defined by physical laws of attraction between its units. So, if we can not call upon natural laws of physical attraction, then is random accidental chance to blame or, as per the above quote, should we be looking elsewhere in order to generate an actual scientific hypothesis?

Here’s a hint: the very first information processing system in the universe (presumably life) was either created randomly and accidentally or was influenced or programmed to exist by intelligence since the informational units which are the foundation of life are not defined by physical laws of attraction. Since there is no room for physical laws of attraction, then it is either “sheer dumb luck” or it is somehow caused by agency and the only type of agency that we are scientifically aware of is necessarily associated with intelligence. Or, maybe there is a second scientifc option ... any ideas?

Furthermore, how does the scientific knowledge of the ‘inter-relatedness’ of information processing systems and intelligence depend on human ignorance? This ‘inter-relatedness’ depends ENTIRELY on what we DO EXPERIMENTALLY KNOW: intelligence requires information processing and information processing requires previous intelligence. Do you have any scientific data that even remotely suggests otherwise?

IMHO, it is modern evolutionary theory, or at least how it is sold, which depends on the extent of human ignorance. How much do we really know about life, how it operates, and how evolution and abiogenesis occur opposed to what we are sold ... er ... told by the scientific priests among us? I think that the “Edge of Evolution” really served to expose the fact that we are still in the dark ages in actual observation and experimental understanding of evolution. For more, I refer you to Dr. Shapiro.

Zachriel: The question you want to ponder is whether or not the genetic code is intelligentlydesigned. So, state it as a hypothesis, and then form specific and distinguishing predictions. If it is designed, then what is the causal link to the designer? How did the designer manufacture the coding device? Who is this designer? Is there more than one designer? Are they aliens or gods? What are they like? Is it really a "code" or are we confusing the analogy with the thing itself? What observations do we make?

These are all excellent questions and are perfectly compatible and would only be explored within an ID paradigm. A few more good question would be:

-“How do you design a program to necessarily produce an information processor within it and how does this relate to our universe and the first information processor within it?” and,

-“How do you design an information processing system to evolve toward intelligence and consciousness as it interacts with its environment and how would this relate to life as we know it?” and,

-“Is there a law of conservation of information, where the generation of a certain amount of new information must be dependant on a specific amount of previous information, so that there is never a true informational free lunch?” and,

-“Is it possible to front load a small amount of information to contain and necessarily produce a larger amount of information upon interaction with its environment: in effect, a type of technologically advanced information compression strategy?”

Of course all of these questions can only be answered as the necessary evidence and data are discovered. Some may be scientifically answerable and others may not. For more discussion of the science of IDT refer to “The Science of Intelligent Design.” (from this blog)

Zachriel: Each answer will raise more questions. The scientific method is not an end-point, but aprocess of investigation.

Completely agreed!

Now, to wrap this all up, let me try to put it a slightly different way and present my scientific question and hypothesis.

Over the course of time there have been at least four different information processing “events” including that of the “appearance” of the universe (when time/matter began). When I say “events”, I am referring to the appearance of new information and information processing systems.

Here are four of them:

1. The information processor which causes the program we know as our universe (matter and energy). This is a quantum information processor. For more info read the book “Programming the Universe” by Seth Lloyd.

2. Matter and energy in the form of atoms creating the information processing system of the living cell -- abiogenesis. This is a biochemical information processor.

3. Living cells in the form of neurons creating the information processing system of the brain. I would call this a cellular (neurons) information processor.

Now, in reference to these information processing systems, I would like to ask a scientific question – one that has the potential of being testable and falsified.

That question is: “will any random set of laws governing the program of an information processing system spontaneously generate even one, much less three information processing systems within the initial program, layering them all on top of each other, or is preceding intelligence (programming) necessary as a cause for this phenomenon?” IOW, what causes information processors? Are they caused by physical laws of attraction, random chance, or intelligence, or ...?

Now, here are some definitions in my own words and brief explanations. BTW: these are only IMO and do not necessarily reflect any ID scientist’s understanding of the matter, however I do see them as defensible, informative, expandable, and perfectly consistent with ID theory.

Conclusion:

- Re: coded information -- if you can created a cypher based on a finite alphabet for a group of units and de-code those units into their specific functional integrated items, then you are dealing with coded information.

- Natural laws of attraction do not define coded information, since coded information is not caused by physical laws of attraction between its units. Natural laws, which depend on forces of attraction (such as voltaic, magnetic, and gravitational) on their own are not a cause of coded information.

- Random causes and “anything is probable after enough time” are not scientific hypothesis, since they are not falsifiable (refer to above quote by prof. Hasofer). Science wants hard data, patterns, and repeatable laws, not "pat" answers.

Approaching my above scientific question with the understanding that science is beginning to understand intelligence, can model intelligence, understands that intelligence and information are intricately related -- in fact necessary for each other as far as we can scientifically determine, one can create the scientific hypothesis that intelligence is a necessary cause of information processing systems and that a program producing a random set of laws will not cause an information processing system to randomly self-organize. Thus, we can scientifically infer that information and intelligence were both present at the initial singularity of our universe.

BTW: this is not an argument against abiogenesis. This is a positive argument for intelligent programming for information/processing systems to exist within overarching programs. In order to falsify this, merely produce a program (which can be, for the sake of argument, taken as a given) which causes a random set of laws and see if information processing systems randomly self organize. In fact, it is my personal opinion that if ID were the governing paradigm we would probably be closer to understanding abiogenesis and evolution from an information processing point of view, rather than sticking our collective heads in the sand and only considering those “hypothesis” which allow us to get something (information processing) from nothing. IMO, the search for RANDOM abiogenesis is the search for the ultimate perpetual motion machine (free energy from nothing).

30 comments:

When we build a house, the walls and decorations matter little if the foundation is not reliable and solid. You have attempted a very long argument. I would suggest that to build a strong argument requires starting with a firm foundation. Then anyone, even a skeptic, can inspect that foundation and confidently follow the argument. Only then do we add walls, roof and rhetorical flourishes.

Specificity

Many of the terms used in Intelligent Design arguments are equivocations. Even if unintentional, these equivocations lead people to invalid conclusions, then to hold these conclusions against all argument.

A case in point is "specificity". You suggest a dictionary definition for "specification: a detailed precise presentation of something or of a plan or proposal for something" adding "in order for anything to be specified, it must be converted by an information processor into its specified object or idea". But these are not the only definitions of "specific: sharing or being those properties of something that allow it to be referred to a particular category", and this can easily lead to confusion or conflation. We have to proceed carefully.

CJYman: "This is how specification is used in ID theory..."

But no. This is not how Dembski uses it in the context of Complex Specified Information. His definition of specificity is quantitative and based on the simplest (meaning shortest) possible description of a pattern by a semiotic agent. Leaving aside the voluminous problems with his definition, this is quite a bit different than yours. All patterns can be specified by a semiotic agent, the question is the compactness of that description.

σ = –log2[ ϕS(T)·P(T|H)].

Angels and Crystal Spheres

Consider the historical example of Angels. We evoke a time when humans could observe and record the intricate movements of planets (planets meaning the classical planets; Sun, Moon, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Mercury) and plot them against events on Earth, but who lacked a unifying explanation such as gravity. Will the "Explanatory Filter" render false positives in such cases?

An ancient astrologer would be able to find many patterns in planetary orbits. They are certainly not randomly distributed. The planets trace large, continuous arcs across the sky from East to West. Another pattern is that they all hug the ecliptic plane. Our semiotic astrologer would be able to state these patterns simply, this description representing a very significant reduction of all the individual observations. Furthermore, they could and did find correlations between the movements of the planets and many events on the ground, such as seasons, the best time to plant crops, even the rise and fall of kings and kingdoms. These patterns are certainly specific, and even meet your definition.

The most complex devices of the day were astrolabes. Take a look at one. Intricate, complex. Certainly designed. Yet, it is only a simulacrum of the planetary orbits. The very process by which you would deduce that the astrolabe is designed, leads to the claim that the movements of planets are designed. And this is exactly the conculsion our ancient semiotes reached. Terrestrial astrolabes were made of brass—the celestial of quitessence.

Hypothesis

CJYman: "Approaching my above scientific question with the understanding that science is beginning to understand intelligence, can model intelligence, understands that intelligence and information are intricately related -- in fact necessary for each other as far as we can scientifically determine, one can create the scientific hypothesis that intelligence is a necessary cause of information processing systems and that a program producing a random set of laws will not cause an information processing system to randomly self-organize. Thus, we can scientifically infer that information and intelligence were both present at the initial singularity of our universe."

You seem to be confused as to the nature of a hypothesis, conflating it with your conclusion. A hypothesis must have specific empirical consequences subject to testing. So Relativity implies that particles under acceleration, such as in a cyclotron, will have longer measured half-lives. This is a prediction that leads to a potential falsification of Relativity. Common Descent implies that all species will fit a nested hierarchy. Each newly discovered species, extant or extinct, is a potential falsification. The Theory of Evolution implies that the measured rate of evolutionary change will be greater than or equal to the fastest historical rate. This is a potential falsification of evolutionary theory. Guess what. Observed evolution is much, much faster than that required to explain the fossil record.

You haven't provided any method of testing your idea. Consider that if it was a strong scientific theory (as opposed to a vague speculation), it would immediately lead to very specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.

I note you started a new thread. Due to the lack of multithreading, I think a separate thread for each issue would be reasonable.

I will respond to Angels and Planetary Orbits here. I have responded to the purported equivocation of "specificity" on your new thread, Concept of Complex Specified Information. If you want to discuss the nature of a scientific hypothesis, you might want to start a new thread for that.

I've noticed a lack of focus in your previous discussions with other commenters. Please try to make singular and specific claims. Start with a strong foundation that any reader can inspect. And let's try and follow your argument!

Zachriel: "Consider the historical example of Angels. We evoke a time when humans could observe and record the intricate movements of planets (planets meaning the classical planets; Sun, Moon, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Mercury) and plot them against events on Earth, but who lacked a unifying explanation such as gravity. Will the 'Explanatory Filter' render false positives in such cases?"

CJYman: "First, did they have any scientific understanding of angels and the phenomenon they were purporting to explain? Second, did they have any observation of 'inter-relatedness' between angels and planetary orbits?"

Angels are evocative. Please try to get past the metaphor of wings on the purported Designer. The question is whether or not planetary orbits would render a false positive for Intelligent Design.

CJYman: "Third, they did not even follow the explanatory filter at all. If they did, and if they had an understanding of natural laws, they first would have looked for regularities since natural laws are based on regularities which is why they can be summed up in mathematical equations and algorithms.

Gee whiz! They did look for patterns. And these patterns are highly specific, that is, they can be compactly described by a semiotic observer. They are also clearly complex, with interactions including everything from the motions of the planets themselves to the change of seasons on Earth.

CJYman: "Moreover, in order to actually move beyond the first stage of the explanatory filter, they would have needed to positively rule out natural law, as has been done with coded information."

And of course, that is the crux of the matter. It is impossible within the scientific paradigm to "positively rule out natural law". Indeed, we are ignorant. Our ancient semiotes can only rule out laws that they are aware of — which they did.

The Ancients detect 'CSI' having all the appearance of a machine with giant interlocking wheels that influence events on Earth. They rule out all known law. That left design, or God of the Gaps.

CJYman: "Also, can you measure the shannon information content of the sequence of planetary orbit positions?"

Of course you can.

CJYman: "Planetary orbits are governed by a law because they follow a regularity and are thus ruled out by the first phase of the EF.

Well, this probably won't mean much to you, but the Solar System is not known to have a stable orbital configuration. Chaos and irregularity can be a consequence of natural law.

Zachriel:"I've noticed a lack of focus in your previous discussions with other commenters. Please try to make singular and specific claims."

I usually start with either developing a thought or else making a couple of claims. Where the comments go from there is pretty much up to the reader/commenter. I try as best as I can to keep things on topic, which is why I may direct them to comment about a certain subject on another blog post of mine or I may start a new blog post to address a separate issue that is brought up.

But yes, again, I am not extremely concise, and do tend to draw up illustrations and discuss a part of a subject at length.

Zachriel:"Angels are evocative. Please try to get past the metaphor of wings on the purported Designer. The question is whether or not planetary orbits would render a false positive for Intelligent Design."

Ah, yes, the wings are getting in the way. Okay, so we are dealing with intelligence as a causal phenomenon. All right, so what is the effect we are attempting to explain? It seems to be levitational orbital movement. Ok, let's say you are from "that era" and I ask you a few questions:

1. What do we know of levitational orbital movement?

2. What do we know of intelligence?

3. What is the necessary connection between the two?

4. What connection have we OBSERVED between levitational orbital movement and intelligence?

Then move on to the EF. Is there a pattern to this levitational orbital movement, thus pointing to a natural law? Of course, you will answer yes to this because you see a repetition of positions throughout the month, the year, etc.

Zachriel:"Gee whiz! They did look for patterns. And these patterns are highly specific, that is, they can be compactly described by a semiotic observer. They are also clearly complex, with interactions including everything from the motions of the planets themselves to the change of seasons on Earth."

You will notice, first that specification only rules out chance and that algorithmic specification ("compactly described") is indicative of law. As I said, if they actually understood science and natural law, they would have understood that an algorithmically specific (which is the type of specificity you are referring to) pattern is indicative of law.

Yes, they are clearly complex, but the complexity of planetary position can not be measured in terms of shannon information, since its position is an analogue property of its orbit and is not a discrete unit.

Thus, with the compactness understood as a result of laws of attraction, we are merely dealing with terrestrial observations of cyclical (again repetitive -- algorithmically compressible) changes in seasons as a result of physical laws of attraction between "heavenly bodies."

Yes, of course, we now know that there are slight variations within these cycles, but we also know that they are caused by laws of physical attraction.

You seriously must have missed the part where I said something to the effect of: in order for the EF to work "Did they POSITIVELY rule out physical laws of attraction between the units as has been done with other things such as":

1. A sequence of letters on a page.

2. A sequence of functional nucleotides

4. The arrangement of rocks in a pile

5. The arrangement of leather into a shoe

Zachriel:"And of course, that is the crux of the matter. It is impossible within the scientific paradigm to "positively rule out natural law". Indeed, we are ignorant. Our ancient semiotes can only rule out laws that they are aware of — which they did."

Ah, but the crux of the matter is that in knowing that there is a pattern, we must defer to law. They knew that there were patterns -- seasons are a case in point; the sun keeps rising every day at certain times a day in different parts of the year.

And I disagree with the statement that we can't rule out law. I understand that we can't positively rule out a hypothesis. But, if there is no lawlike hypothesis, because of pure randomness (algorithmic incompressibility), then I personally think that we can rule out law altogether. This seems to be why randomness (opposite of law) can actually be quantified according to algorithmic information theory. Because we can actually measure the amount of "law" necessary to compress the pattern.

However, regardless of whether it is correct or not that law can positively be ruled out, if we see a compressible or repetitive pattern of any type, as those humans who designed the astrolabes did, then we must resort to law.

Furthermore, IMO, and in the opinion of Michael Polanyi, physical laws of attraction can be ruled out when a sequence is independent of the properties of its substrate. How do we know this to be the case? When there is no repetitive pattern between the units, since physical laws of attraction MUST produce repetitive pattern. This is why Michael Polanyi stated that life is founded on non-physical and non-chemical properties. Functional DNA has no algorithmic compressibility.

Zachriel:"The Ancients detect 'CSI' having all the appearance of a machine with giant interlocking wheels that influence events on Earth. They rule out all known law. That left design, or God of the Gaps."

Incorrect, as I just finished explaining, they used neither the EF, nor CSI, and I've already dealt with why we can't trust "appearence" which is not measurable in terms on information because of false positives.

"God of the gaps?" as opposed to "chance of the gaps?"

ID only fills in a gap that is necessarily not caused by chance or by law.

CJYman: "Ok, let's say you are from "that era" and I ask you a few questions:

1. What do we know of levitational orbital movement?"

I don't know what this "levitational" is that you refer to. Is that like the strawmen the soldiers train on at the castle? Or is it some sort of witchcraft?

In any case, the planets trace great arcs across the sky in complicated and interlocking wheels. We can even approximate this motion with wheels made of brass. But it's a very complex undertaking. Requires our very best scientists and engineers. Truly a marvel of modern 1st century technology.

CJYman: "2. What do we know of intelligence?"

They make complicated machines with interlocking wheels. Though, as I said, only the very best of our scholars can make such a complicated machine.

CJYman: "3. What is the necessary connection between the two?"

Every instance where we observe machines with complicated interlocking wheels, we observe an intelligent cause. The difference is only one of the great size of the celestial mechanism.

CJYman: "4. What connection have we OBSERVED between levitational orbital movement and intelligence?"

I have no idea what you mean by "levitation", but it sounds an awful lot like witchcraft. The planets aren't "levitated". Why should they be. Only earthy objects are drawn naturally to the Earth.

CJYman: "Is there a pattern to this levitational orbital movement, thus pointing to a natural law?"

Ah, so if we observe a complicated machines on Earth with interlocking wheels and other gizmos, we should assume some sort of natural law! Well, that explains the flagellum.

CJYman: "Yes, of course, we now know that there are slight variations within these cycles, but we also know that they are caused by laws of physical attraction."

Laws of physical attraction in the Heavens. You mean like Zeus and Hera? Aw, you're just making that up. Or are you speaking of that "levitational" witchcraft again?

CJYman: "You seriously must have missed the part where I said something to the effect of: in order for the EF to work "Did they POSITIVELY rule out physical laws ..."

You can't POSITIVELY rule out physical laws of which you are unaware. You just keep invoking this "levitation" to fill gaps in your materialist philosophy. The stately progression of the planets and their influence on our lives is clearly designed.

---

I am very interested to know if you are capable of actually learning from this sort of discussion.

CJYman: "However, chaos and irregularity are not described by natural law and are thus rightfully attributed to chance."

You are wrong on this point. Even though the laws of gravity and motion that govern the motion of the planets are well-understood, it is not known if the Solar System is stable over long time-scales. The general multi-body planetary system is inherently chaotic and unpredictable. Even in a simplified and deterministic Newtonian universe.

﻿CJYman: "Ok, let's say you are from "that era" and I ask you a few questions:

1. What do we know of levitational orbital movement?"

Zachriel:“I don't know what this "levitational" is that you refer to. Is that like the strawmen the soldiers train on at the castle? Or is it some sort of witchcraft?

In any case, the planets trace great arcs across the sky in complicated and interlocking wheels. We can even approximate this motion with wheels made of brass. But it's a very complex undertaking. Requires our very best scientists and engineers. Truly a marvel of modern 1st century technology.”

Have you ever observed these complicated and interlocking wheels. What are they made of?

(Now, you will notice that your argument is based on what you DON’T know.

Conversely, however, the argument/observation re: life as an information processing and coding/decoding system has been well established scientifically in peer reviewed articles written by Hubert Yockey, drawing from the foundation of established information theory and its explanation of data travelling through a communication channel from a transmitter to a receiver. Would you care to discuss this aspect of life as an actual information processing system which relies on actual coding and decoding systems? Furthermore, we have also observed the necessary “inter-relatedness” between intelligence and information processing systems.)

CJYman: "2. What do we know of intelligence?"

Zachriel:“They make complicated machines with interlocking wheels. Though, as I said, only the very best of our scholars can make such a complicated machine.”

I see that you are noticing that there is a regularity in planetary motion and because of your understanding of intelligently produced regularities (within machinery), you make an inference to design. That is actually an inference which is still scientifically arguable today. Of course the process has changed from a “clock work” universe to an information processing universe (hypothesized by Seth Lloyd), however the observation of regularities is still an indication of law which is now understood to be the result of the processing of information, and we now know that information processing systems and intelligence are intricately linked. In fact, an intelligent system is merely a type of information processing system.

Therefore the hypothesis re: mechanism (clock work machine instead of information processor) was wrong, but the hypothesis re: inference to intelligent design is still the best scientific explanation after all these years.

CJYman: "3. What is the necessary connection between the two?"

Zachriel:“Every instance where we observe machines with complicated interlocking wheels, we observe an intelligent cause. The difference is only one of the great size of the celestial mechanism.”

Refer to answers for 1. And 2.

CJYman: "4. What connection have we OBSERVED between levitational orbital movement and intelligence?"

Zachriel:“I have no idea what you mean by "levitation", but it sounds an awful lot like witchcraft. The planets aren't "levitated". Why should they be. Only earthy objects are drawn naturally to the Earth.”

Understandable. (Of course this shows the actual level of lack of observation and understanding of the system in question which “you” are attempting to explain.)

CJYman: "Is there a pattern to this levitational orbital movement, thus pointing to a natural law?"

Zachriel:“Ah, so if we observe a complicated machines on Earth with interlocking wheels and other gizmos, we should assume some sort of natural law! Well, that explains the flagellum.”

Incorrect, you took my argument and reversed it. Regular patterns point to laws, which then point to machinery and information processors, not the other way around. Machinery (ie: clocks) and information processing systems create laws/regularities within themselves. This is why, when one sees laws/regularities, one infers a type of regulatory machine (computer, etc) as the cause of the regularity.

You have just argued the opposite – that a machine points to a law; thus laws create machines. If you would like to develop and argue for that, please do so. However, it is not what I said.

CJYman: "Yes, of course, we now know that there are slight variations within these cycles, but we also know that they are caused by laws of physical attraction."

Zachriel:“Laws of physical attraction in the Heavens. You mean like Zeus and Hera? Aw, you're just making that up. Or are you speaking of that "levitational" witchcraft again?”

I am speaking of our direct observations today. I have officially time travelled back to the future in order to show that “you” were only mistaken as to the mechanism, and that this mistake was caused by a lack of understanding of the planetary orbits. This is not a problem with life, as we do understand based on observation and knowledge of how it operates that it is indeed an information processing and coding/decoding system.

CJYman: "You seriously must have missed the part where I said something to the effect of: in order for the EF to work "Did they POSITIVELY rule out physical laws ..."

Zachriel:“You can't POSITIVELY rule out physical laws of which you are unaware. You just keep invoking this "levitation" to fill gaps in your materialist philosophy. The stately progression of the planets and their influence on our lives is clearly designed.”

The law which governs the progression of the planets is still clearly designed as per our scientific understanding of information processing systems and their “inter-relatedness” (as previously mentioned) with intelligence.

However, as to your last sentence, there is no scientific evidence of the planets influence on our lives being designed. If you would like to create a testable, falsifiable model re: the planets influence on our lives and how this influence is intelligently designed then please do so. Of course, you may want to define “influence” first.

It is correct that you can’t POSITIVELY rule out physical laws of which you are unaware. But it is also correct that when you see regularities, you are to defer to law as opposed to chance or intelligence. However, since chance does exist, until you find regularities, you can’t evoke laws.

However, as to POSITIVELY ruling out physical laws of attraction: this must be done when describing the chance aspect of stochastic processes. If it couldn’t be done, then probability theory would be intellectually vacuous as would be information theory, since it deals with measuring probabilities as information flows through a communication channel. Again, you can’t attribute something to natural law if it does not contain regularities and probability theory is with us because chance does exist.

Tell me, can you positively rule out physical laws of attraction between the letters on a page in a book as being the cause of the story within the book?

All you need to do is observe a few things:

1. when you erase one letter, the rest of the sequence is unaffected ... the letters are not affected by any physical law of attraction between each other. Also, the letters are not attached to each other by physical laws of attraction.

2. If you place a random assortment of letters in close proximity, they will not self-organize into the content of the page. There is no physical/chemical reaction between groups of letters to create words.

3. There is no repetitive pattern of the letters within the story. There is no mathematical equation to explain the sequence of letters on the page.

Finally, it is true that nothing can be ruled as absolutely true or false within science. There may be other laws as of yet undiscovered which cause and regulate information, however, they would be something other than physics itself, since physics deals with the interaction between matter and energy and it is now becoming understood that information is at least on the same level (possibly deeper) as matter and energy (again refer to “Programming the Universe” by Seth Lloyd). And again, on the inter-universal scale, the matter and energy that create life is controlled by information, and an information processing system, and its informational sequence is not controlled by physical laws of attraction between nucleotides. In fact the arrangement can’t be affected by physical laws of attraction, since nucleotides aren’t even bound to each other – they are bound to the DNA backbone.

As to this deeper law ... well, if information and a processing system are necessary for each other’s existence, and if intelligence is a type of information processing system, and intelligence creates information, can intelligence be seen as a type of deeper law? Hmmmmm ... interesting, no?!?!?! Definitely worth developing as we continue to uncover the secrets of intelligence ...

Zachriel:“I am very interested to know if you are capable of actually learning from this sort of discussion.”

I am actually thinking the exact same thing. What a coincidence. Shall we continue ...

CJYman: "However, chaos and irregularity are not described by natural law and are thus rightfully attributed to chance."

Zachriel:“You are wrong on this point. Even though the laws of gravity and motion that govern the motion of the planets are well-understood, it is not known if the Solar System is stable over long time-scales. The general multi-body planetary system is inherently chaotic and unpredictable. Even in a simplified and deterministic Newtonian universe.”

Do you seriously not realize that it is the chaotic and unpredictable aspect of nature which is not describable by laws? Laws provide a measure of predictability. But, you are only stating what I just said. Our universe is stochastic. It is a combination of chance and necessity, unpredictability and predictability. If there were no laws and predictability, then there would be no such process as the scientific endeavour. However, chance still exists. Chance is not describable by law, yet can be combined with law to create stochastic systems in which some aspects of the system will be describable by law and other aspects by chance [and God-forbid, other aspects by intelligence – such as those systems which create laws within them (information processing systems; including living systems)] and all aspects by a combination of these potential causal explanations.

You just described a stochastic system. What does that have to do with what I just said? Are you trying to say that chaos *is* describable by law? You do know the difference between stochastic and chaotic, right? Stochastic systems (ie: climate) follow both law and chance, and are predictable to the extent that the random variables are known, but purely chaotic (purely random) systems (ie: algorithmically complex patterns) do not follow law. It is the random (chaotic) side of stochastic nature which is not describable by law. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp.

CJYman: "Now, you will notice that your argument is based on what you DON’T know."

Zachriel:"Precisely. And congratulations."

﻿Yep ... now shall we continue with what I stated directly after that quote? You know, the part where I started with: “Conversely,...”

Are you following along with the point, Zachriel? Summed up, your argument was based on ignorance of the system in question and ignorance of the observed cause and effect relationship for that type of system. Conversely, mine (The ID argument) is not based on ignorance of either the type of system in question or the observed and information theoretic applicable cause and effect relations of that type of system.

﻿Zachriel:"Deterministic, non-random, completely described by Newton's Laws. And chaotic."

What does any of this have to do with my question: “Do you seriously not realize that it is the chaotic and unpredictable aspect of nature which is not describable by laws?"

Relevance to topic:Contingent, algorithmically complex patterns are not definable by law. They will appear in a stochastic system, however, they aren’t defined by theoretical laws. They are random.

Zachriel:"Chaos was discovered by Lorenz in a completely deterministic computer weather simulation, c. 1960. There were no random variables."

No random variables? You mean the values for the laws were not random variables, chosen from a set of possible values?

I think we may be talking past each other here, Zachriel. The question I think I need to ask you first is: “is nature stochastic?” And, “what is random?”

My understanding is that stochastic = anything which contains a random parameter. Furthermore, since I don’t see how pure randomness can exist on its own, as far as I can tell, a stochastic system must consist of both law and randomness.

Since a system governed by law will produce algorithmically complex patterns if the starting point is not perfectly uniform (ie: “game of life” program), and nature is governed by law and has produced non-uniform (random) algorithmically complex results, then nature is stochastic.

Random is the opposite of guided. Intelligent foresight (teleology) can guide, active information can guide, and natural law can guide in a regular/repetitive direction since it is regular and directional (ie: EM and gravitational fields). The reason why nature is stochastic is because it creates patterns, such as a random pile of rocks, which are not definable by law. However, algorithmically complex pattern are not *guided* by laws within nature, since these patterns are not regular/repetitive. These patterns are created by the random aspects of nature [as a stochastic system].

Furthermore, when algorithmically complex patterns are specified (in short: conform to a system of rules), this provides evidence that they are not created merely by the random aspects of nature. So, algorithmically complex rules out law and when specificity is added, chance is ruled out -- but I’ve already explained this many times already. The other options are guidance by information of some type and by intelligence.

One question for you ... In keeping with the topic of this post and your previous obfuscations, how does this apply to you attempting to equate ID Theory with a theory of ignorance?

Will unguided stochastic processes a random set of laws) create information processing systems and complex specified information and also do so at a rate consistently higher than random chance? If you say yes, then you are the one arguing on both ignorance and “chance of the gaps,” contrary to all observation and experiment with those type of systems.

Furthermore, as I already stated, “... the argument/observation re: life as an information processing and coding/decoding system has been well established scientifically in peer reviewed articles written by Hubert Yockey, drawing from the foundation of established information theory and its explanation of data travelling through a communication channel from a transmitter to a receiver. Would you care to discuss this aspect of life as an actual information processing system which relies on actual coding and decoding systems?Furthermore, we have also observed the necessary “inter-relatedness” between intelligence and information processing systems.”

Random is a (typically uniform) probability distribution. In the empirical sciences, it indicates a lack of statistical correlation between variables.

Each roll of a fair die is independent of the rolls that preceded it, independent of whomever rolls the die or their earnest entreaties, independent of whether it is sunny or not.

CJYman: "Random is the opposite of guided."

The use of "guided" in this context is highly confusing. The term nearly always implies purpose or at least causation. Sometimes we might see it used in a manner where the meaning is clear, but it is not normally construed as an antonym to "random". The opposite of random is ordered, patterned, or correlated, depending on the context.

Lorenz was a meteorologist making early experiments with computer weather simulations. When looking at the printouts, Lorenz and his colleagues were amazed that a handful of differential equations could create *non-periodic* results that looked much like weather.

One day (c.1960), Lorenz wanted to recreate a particular result. So using a printout, he input the values from the middle of the previous run. He watched in amazement as the weather pattern started to diverge, first slowly, then dramatically, from the previous pattern. But the computer simulation was completely deterministic! How could it be?

What he discovered was that the printout only included a limited number of digits, but the computer memory was working with greater precision. The very slight rounding error changed everything!

This sensitivity to initial conditions he called the Butterfly Effect. The flap of a butterflies wings could change the course of weather forever.

Nor is chaos random (though it may have random characteristics). Chaos Theory has discovered various patterns called attractors, e.g. the strange attractor.

﻿Zachriel:"Nor is chaos random (though it may have random characteristics). Chaos Theory has discovered various patterns called attractors, e.g. the strange attractor."

Understood and agreed.

The patterns known as strange attractors are caused by regularities in the chaotic system. These regularities are described by laws. Ie: The strange attractor of average weather conditions from one year to the next is caused by the (basically) regular orbit (who's shape is mathematically describable based on position from sun and the gravitational equation) of the planets which in turn is caused by different laws (ie: gravity) operating upon random variables (the initial conditions which caused our planetary orbits). But, I still do not see what this has to do with the subject of this blog post.

Zachriel:"Random is a (typically uniform) probability distribution. In the empirical sciences, it indicates a lack of statistical correlation between variables.

Each roll of a fair die is independent of the rolls that preceded it, independent of whomever rolls the die or their earnest entreaties, independent of whether it is sunny or not."

Excellent definitions/explanations. You obviously have a grasp of the basic concepts involved. That’s why I’m still wondering why we aren’t quite seeing eye to eye.

CJYman: "Random is the opposite of guided."

Zachriel:"The use of "guided" in this context is highly confusing. The term nearly always implies purpose or at least causation. Sometimes we might see it used in a manner where the meaning is clear, but it is not normally construed as an antonym to "random". The opposite of random is ordered, patterned, or correlated, depending on the context."

... And if it is on average ordered, patterned or correlated, then it is guided to be so either by law, problem specific information, and/or intelligence. Thus, randomness is the opposite of guided.

﻿Zachriel: "Chaos was discovered by Lorenz in a completely deterministic computer weather simulation, c. 1960. There were no random variables."

CJYman: "No random variables?"

Zachriel:"No random variables. Chaos is characterized by sensitivity to initial conditions. Completely deterministic systems can be chaotic. That's what Chaos Theory is all about.

And those initial conditions aren’t random in relation to each other – ie highly algorithmically incompressible (the information theoretic measurement of randomness)?

Here's a simple experiment to show the point. Download game of life. Now, you will notice that the only way to end up with an overall irregular, incompressible pattern is to input an irregular (algorithmically incompressible) pattern).

However, it is true that a random pattern (ie: random scribble) may create instances of regularity. This only shows that the regular laws at the base of the program will act on random patterns and produce regular patterns from it. This shows that a chaotic system (random initial conditions) can create regular patterns when acted upon by a set of laws (which is a measure of regularity).

CJYman: "Do you seriously not realize that it is the chaotic and unpredictable aspect of nature which is not describable by laws?"

Zachriel:"Completely deterministic systems can be chaotic. Indeed, the general multi-body gravitational system is inherently chaotic yet is completely describable by laws."

Like I said, it is the “ chaotic and unpredictable aspect of nature which is not describable by laws.” The unpredictable nature of our solar system is not defined by theoretical law, just as a random assortment of rocks (the unpredictable aspect of nature) is also not describable by theoretical law. It is defined by how law has played out the initial random conditions which caused the solar system. This has nothing to do with the fact that these random aspects do exist within a lawful system. I am only saying that the irregular or unpredictable aspects are not described by laws. If they were then they wouldn’t be irregular and unpredictable. As a chaotic system, the planetary orbits must be described by both law and chance -- a chance assortment of initial conditions and the laws which act on them. The law of gravitation describes the shape of the orbit and other aspects. Chance describes how random aspects change those other lawful aspects over time within the bounds of those laws. What this has to do with ID Theory, you have yet to tell me.

For the most part, (except where specified), I agree with how you are describing randomness.

However, you seem to be ignoring both the topic at hand and what I have previously stated. When I refer to random patterns, I am referring to algorithmic complexity (an information theoretic measurement of randomness which correlates with statistical randomness).

Furthermore, an algorithmically complex pattern can be both random and yet determined (by initial conditions and law and is thus chaotic), however, since it is algorithmically complex it is also not describable by the laws which cause it to be determined. Here is an example:

(Pseudo) Random number generators generate patterns of numbers that are algorithmically complex, thus random and not definable by laws. However, although these patterns are random, all patterns produced by (pseudo) random number generators are also determined – thus the “pseudo” part, even though they can be highly algorithmically complex and thus have a high degree of randomness from an information theoretic point of view. Thus, patterns can be both random (algorithmically complex) and determined, yet not described by regularities/law (one cause of specified patterns).

In order to keep on topic, I will repost the on topic part of our discussion (the only part to which you seem not to have responded ).

“Furthermore, when algorithmically complex patterns *are* specified (in short: conform to a system of rules), this provides evidence that they are not created *merely* by the random aspects of nature. So, algorithmically complex rules out law and when [highly improbable] specificity is added, chance is ruled out -- but I’ve already explained this many times already. The other options are guidance by information of some type and by intelligence.

One question for you ... In keeping with the topic of this post and your previous obfuscations, how does this apply to you attempting to equate ID Theory with a theory of ignorance?

Will unguided stochastic processes (a random set of laws) create information processing systems and highly improbable (beyond PB), algorithmically complex and specified information? If you say yes, then you are the one arguing on both ignorance and “chance of the gaps,” contrary to all observation and experiment with those type of systems.

Furthermore, as I already stated, “... the argument/observation re: life as an information processing and coding/decoding system has been well established scientifically in peer reviewed articles written by Hubert Yockey, drawing from the foundation of established information theory and its explanation of data travelling through a communication channel from a transmitter to a receiver. Would you care to discuss this aspect of life as an actual information processing system which relies on actual coding and decoding systems?

Furthermore, we have also observed the necessary “inter-relatedness” between intelligence and information processing systems.”

Zachriel: No random variables. Chaos is characterized by sensitivity to initial conditions. Completely deterministic systems can be chaotic. That's what Chaos Theory is all about.

CJYman: And those initial conditions aren’t random in relation to each other – ie highly algorithmically incompressible (the information theoretic measurement of randomness)?

In a weather simulation, we have barometric pressure, humidity, temperature, and other parameters measured at different points on the landscape. Those points in close proximity usually have values close to one another. I'm sure you've seen weather maps.

Zachriel: Completely deterministic systems can be chaotic. Indeed, the general multi-body gravitational system is inherently chaotic yet is completely describable by laws.

CJYman: Chance describes how random aspects change those other lawful aspects over time within the bounds of those laws.

And this is precisely incorrect. There is no random something necessary to cause chaos in planetary orbits over time. The general multibody system can be aperiodic and chaotic. There is no random pertubation that makes it so. It's inherent to the general multibody system.

(By comparision, the general two-body system is not chaotic.)

CJYman: However, you seem to be ignoring both the topic at hand and what I have previously stated.

You can't intelligently discuss algorithmic complexity if you don't understand chaos as chaos and complexity are closely related.

CJYman: Furthermore, when algorithmically complex patterns are specified (in short: conform to a system of rules), this provides evidence that they are not created merely by the random aspects of nature.

And this exemplifies the relevance. The general multibody system is chaotic and therefore a complex, aperiodic pattern. (Being aperiodic, a history can't be simplified by describing an ellipse.) Yet, it conforms to a simple set of rules. We have once again concluded that angels push planets on crystal spheres, er, I mean an unnamed designer.

CJYman: And those initial conditions aren’t random in relation to each other – ie highly algorithmically incompressible (the information theoretic measurement of randomness)?

Zachriel:"In a weather simulation, we have barometric pressure, humidity, temperature, and other parameters measured at different points on the landscape. Those points in close proximity usually have values close to one another. I'm sure you've seen weather maps."

... just answer the question.

Zachriel:"And this is precisely incorrect. There is no random something necessary to cause chaos in planetary orbits over time. The general multibody system can be aperiodic and chaotic. There is no random pertubation that makes it so. It's inherent to the general multibody system."

True, and if the initial conditions of the pattern are algorithmically compressible, then an overall algorithmically compressible pattern will form (with potential for repeating random patterns). However, if the initial conditions are random (not-regular/algorithmically complex as per information theory), then the overall pattern will be random (with potential for random outbreaks of algorithmically compressible patterns). But I am merely repeating myself from one of my last few posts.

Did you try the "game of life" yet? Input random points and see what happens. Now input an algorithmically compressible -- regular pattern -- and see what happens. I rest my case ... even though it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

CJYman: However, you seem to be ignoring both the topic at hand and what I have previously stated.

Then make your point and back it up with some evidence and understanding of the concepts in question.

The connection between chaos and complexity as you have laid out is obvious. What is your point?

CJYman: Furthermore, when algorithmically complex patterns are specified (in short: conform to a system of rules), this provides evidence that they are not created merely by the random aspects of nature.

Zachriel:"And this exemplifies the relevance. The general multibody system is chaotic and therefore a complex, aperiodic pattern. (Being aperiodic, a history can't be simplified by describing an ellipse.) Yet, it conforms to a simple set of rules."

You are missing something. For a pattern to be conformed to a system of rules, as is used in this context, it must be able to be independently formulated. Ie: functional event is independently formulated as a conditionally independent pattern of RNA. Conditionally independent = RNA is not caused by the specified functional pattern of proteins as per the Central Dogma of Biology. This stands because, as Dr. Yockey has shown, there is not enough information in the protein to specify the RNA.

Zachriel:"We have once again concluded that angels push planets on crystal spheres, er, I mean an unnamed designer."

We have done no such thing for two reasons. One reason is there is no independent formulation. The second reason is that, in this case, the event is caused by the laws of attraction between units and therefore its pattern has a probability of 1, given the rules of the system in question (our universe). Conversely, the RNA in life is not caused by the physical attractive properties of the units so we can actually calculate a probability based on the units of the pattern in question. If you disagree, then please go ahead and calculate the probabilities of an orbit where the orbit is caused by physical laws of attraction (explain how you arrived at the probability -- as a measure of decrease of uncertainty) and then the specificity (explain that as well). Now, calculate for a specification.

I agree with the rest of your comments.

So, the main question is: will a chaotic system based on a random set of laws and initial conditions create patterns which are *both* algorithmically complex and yet conform to a system of rules (formulated independent of the event in question) and are beyond probabilistic resources? Evidence please. If you say yes, then you are the one arguing on both ignorance and “chance of the gaps,” contrary to all observation and experiment with those type of systems.

BTW: in order to have a pattern which is both algorithmically complex and specified, you need an information processing system. So, the system in question needs to also generate an information processing system as our universe has done with life.

Furthermore, as I already stated, “... the argument/observation re: life as an information processing and coding/decoding system has been well established scientifically in peer reviewed articles written by Hubert Yockey, drawing from the foundation of established information theory and its explanation of data travelling through a communication channel from a transmitter to a receiver. Would you care to discuss this aspect of life as an actual information processing system which relies on actual coding and decoding systems?

Furthermore, we have also observed the necessary “inter-relatedness” between intelligence and information processing systems.”

They're weather parameters. That means each of the parameters exists on somewhat of a gradient. Gradients are typically compressible. Or if you prefer a more modern interpretation, a weather map is a compressible image.

CJYman: if the initial conditions of the pattern are algorithmically compressible, then an overall algorithmically compressible pattern will form (with potential for repeating random patterns).

What does small integrals have to do with algorithmic compressibility? I still stand by what I have stated, since it is easily demonstrated in the "game of life," which I've already referenced 3 times.

To get us back on topic, I will again ask:

"One question for you ... In keeping with the topic of this post and your previous obfuscations, how does this apply to you attempting to equate ID Theory with a theory of ignorance?

Will unguided stochastic processes (a random set of laws) create information processing systems and highly improbable (beyond PB), algorithmically complex and specified information? If you say yes, then you are the one arguing on both ignorance and “chance of the gaps,” contrary to all observation and experiment with those type of systems.

Furthermore, as I already stated, “... the argument/observation re: life as an information processing and coding/decoding system has been well established scientifically in peer reviewed articles written by Hubert Yockey, drawing from the foundation of established information theory and its explanation of data travelling through a communication channel from a transmitter to a receiver. Would you care to discuss this aspect of life as an actual information processing system which relies on actual coding and decoding systems?

Furthermore, we have also observed the necessary “inter-relatedness” between intelligence and information processing systems.”

Your last comment which I am about to respond to contains nothing but repeated assertions on your part which you have refused to back up with evidence and which I have already negated in my response with evidence from the simulation "game of life."

Zachriel's "review:"

CJYman: "Do you seriously not realize that it is the chaotic and unpredictable aspect of nature which is not describable by laws?"

Zachriel:"Wrong. Chaotic and unpredictable aspects of nature can be the result very few objects acting via very simple laws."

What you state is true, except for the "wrong" part. That is incorrect as I've already explained as it relates to our discussion, unless you misunderstood me (like usual), either purposefully or not. The end pattern of a chaotic system is not describable by laws of the units in question. It is describable by laws acting upon initial conditions. It is these initial conditions which are the important variable and if these initial conditions are not known, we can not predict or describe a chaotic system. Furthermore, if the initial conditions are also random, then you have laws acting upon a random set of initial conditions to create a chaotic system with a random end pattern. In this case, the chaotic process produces a pattern of units which are random. IOW, the chaotic pattern is arrived at by non random laws acting upon random variables, however the end pattern of the units in the chaotic system are random with respect to each other. But, we've already been over this, and I have provided evidence with the "game of life" simulation but you continually ignore this point.

As well, it *is* the unpredictable aspects of nature which are not describable by law. A law by definition is a description of a repeatable and predictable event. Therefore, unpredictable = not describable by law. If you can't even get this right, how in the world can I continue this conversation with you?

CJYman: "if the initial conditions of the pattern are algorithmically compressible, then an overall algorithmically compressible pattern will form (with potential for repeating random patterns)."

Zachriel:"Wrong. Aperiodic systems can occur with very few objects in very simple relationships."

Yes, and ...That has nothing to do with what I just said. You are again confusing yourself, Zachriel. OR else you are deliberately trying your very best to misunderstand me and not directly reply to what I say.

Wait a minute, could this be another example of "Zachriel obfuscation?" No way?!?!?!? Could it really be?!?!?!

My statement stands as I have shown in the "game of life" simulation which you conveniently continue to ignore and which you haven't responded to yet.

Chaos and complexity of are critical importance in understanding why the "Design Inference" is faulty. Without an understanding of the fundamentals, you will inevitably reach the wrong result."

You have not yet provided any evidence whatsoever that the initial conditions for the chaotic system are not random. In fact, this is *another* point which you continue to conveniently ignore. Actually, this point is directly related to the "game of life" simulation.

Actually chaos has no effect on the design inference whatsoever unless you can show that a chaotic system formed from a random set of laws acting upon random variables (void of previous intelligent programming) will produce information processing systems, evolutionary algorithms, convergent evolution, CSI, etc.

Now, since I've again responded by repeating the same evidence to negate your repeated "off topic" evidence-lacking assertions, I will repost the "on topic" portion of our discussion. This is the portion which you refuse to answer and which you refuse to explain how a "chaotic" system supports your hypothesis (whatever that is).

"One question for you ... In keeping with the topic of this post and your previous obfuscations, how does this apply to you attempting to equate ID Theory with a theory of ignorance?

Will unguided stochastic processes (a random set of laws) create information processing systems and highly improbable (beyond PB), algorithmically complex and specified information? If you say yes, then you are the one arguing on both ignorance and “chance of the gaps,” contrary to all observation and experiment with those type of systems.

Furthermore, as I already stated, “... the argument/observation re: life as an information processing and coding/decoding system has been well established scientifically in peer reviewed articles written by Hubert Yockey, drawing from the foundation of established information theory and its explanation of data travelling through a communication channel from a transmitter to a receiver. Would you care to discuss this aspect of life as an actual information processing system which relies on actual coding and decoding systems?

Furthermore, we have also observed the necessary “inter-relatedness” between intelligence and information processing systems.”

﻿If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just
as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know
it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Albert Einstein

﻿The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.

About Me

I am a Christian and I believe that the universe and life was designed on purpose, with a purpose, and for a purpose. I believe that objective truth and reality do exist and can be discovered through reasoning. Regarding evolution, natural selection and evolution obviously occur, however the use of natural selection to produce increase of complex and specified information is not possible absent the existence of previous highly improbable and specified information not defined by physical properties of material used. I could be seen as a theistic evolutionist who also believes that the foundational tenets of Intelligent Design Theory are both scientific and correct.
I describe myself as a realist and I also enjoy cooking and snowboarding.